My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC00493
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSPC00493
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:50:06 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 2:13:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.100.10
Description
Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
6/3/1963
Title
AZ Vs CA - Determination of Rights of States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to Waters of the Main Stream of the Colorado River - Opinion of the Supreme Court of the US - RE AZ Vs CA
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />002182 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />ing the two basins and other points of interest in this <br />controversy is printed as an Appendix at p. 53.) Article <br />III (a) of the Compact apportions to each basin in per- <br />petuity 7,500,000 acre-feet of water 22 a year from the <br />Colorado River System, defined in Article II (a) as "the <br />Colorado River and its tributaries within the United <br />States of America." In addition, Article III (b) gives <br />the Lower Basin "the right to increase its beneficial con- <br />sumptive use 23 of such waters by one million acre-feet <br />per annum." Article III (c) provides that future Mex- <br />icanwater rights recognized by the United States shall <br />be supplied first out of surplus over and above the aggre- <br />gate of the quantities specified in (a) and (b), and if <br />this surplus is not enough the deficiency shall be borne <br />equally by the two basins. Article III (d) requires the <br />Upper Basin not to deplete the Lee Ferry flow below an <br />aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any 10 consecutive <br />years. Article III (f) and (g) provide a way for fur- <br />ther apportionment by a compact of "Colorado River <br />System" waters at any time after October 1, 1963. <br />While these. allocations quieted rivalries between the <br />Upper and Lower Basins, major differences between the <br />States in the Lower Basin continued: Failure of the <br />Compact to. determine each State's share of the water <br />left Nevada and Arizona with their fears that the law <br />of prior appropriation would be not a protection but a <br />menace because California could use that law to get for <br />herself the lion's share of the waters allotted to the Lower <br />Basin. Moreover, Arizona, because of her particularly <br />strong interest in the Gila, intensely resented the Com- <br />pact's inclusion of the Colorado River tributaries in its <br />allocation scheme and was bitterly hostile to having <br /> <br />2. An acre-foot of water is enough to cover an acre of land with one <br />foot of. water. <br />23 "Beneficial consumptive use" means consumptive use measured <br />by diversions less return flows, for a beneficial (nonwasteful) purpose. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.